Religious Membership Decisions
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not practice infant baptism. Rather, a person wanting to be baptized (an adult or a mature youth raised in a Witness household) must first undertake an in-depth study of the Bible, attend the twice-weekly religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and participate in their evangelizing activity. Only if the person does so and is convinced by what he is learning and applies it in his life will he be baptized.
Jehovah’s Witnesses consider such things as adultery, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic or other violence, and theft to be serious sins. If a baptized adherent commits a serious sin, elders will try to provide pastoral help. If the offender does not repent, the elders might decide to disfellowship (expel) him from being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The elders will then make a brief announcement to the local congregation where the offender attended, as follows: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Nothing else is said, nor is an announcement made in any other congregation. A similar process is followed if a baptized adherent decides to renounce his faith and categorically makes it known that he does not want to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses (disassociation).
Individual adherents will then decide, based on their individual conscience and circumstances, whether to stop or limit contact with the person in the light of the Bible command to “stop keeping company”1 with an expelled person (a belief that courts have described as “passive” social avoidance).
An expelled (or disassociated) person is welcome to attend our religious services, share in singing songs at those services, and receive religious publications and pastoral help from elders. If the individual adjusts his lifestyle and attitude, he can apply to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue. Disfellowshipped individuals may attend our religious services … [and] receive spiritual counsel from congregation elders.”
In other words, an expelled or disassociated person is not at any time hated by adherents. Rather, the Bible commands that upon the individual’s reinstatement to the congregation, adherents should “confirm”2 their love and affection for such a person. Within the immediate family, there is no change in the social relationship. The official website of Jehovah’s Witnesses explains:3
“The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue. Disfellowshipped individuals may attend our religious services. If they wish, they may also receive spiritual counsel from congregation elders.”
In addition to the religious reasons set out above, friends and family may also choose to limit or break off dealings with the expelled person because of the emotional pain and hardship he has caused the family, as in the case of a husband who has abandoned his wife and children or squandered the family’s savings on alcohol or drug addiction.
“It is a common feature of many religions that they determine doctrinal standards of behaviour by which their followers must abide in their private lives … Jehovah’s Witnesses’ regulations … are no different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers’ private lives.”
It is well established by national and international court decisions that the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses on disfellowshipping and “shunning” are protected by freedom of religion.
On the right of a religious community to set religious rules, and for adherents to follow those rules, the ECHR ruled in Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia:4
“… It is a common feature of many religions that they determine doctrinal standards of behaviour by which their followers must abide in their private lives, including matters such as attendance at church services, performance of rituals, wearing specific clothes or observing dietary restrictions. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ regulations on engaging in door-to-door preaching and attendance at religious meetings are no different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers’ private lives. …”
“… It is a known fact that a religious way of life requires from its followers both abidance by religious rules and self-dedication to religious work that can take up a significant portion of the believer’s time. Nevertheless, as long as self-dedication to religious matters is the product of the believer’s independent and free decision and however unhappy his or her family members may feel about that decision, the ensuing estrangement cannot be taken to mean that the religion caused the break-up in the family. Quite often, the opposite is true: it is the resistance and unwillingness of non religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion that is the source of conflict. It is true that friction often exists in marriages where the spouses belong to different religious denominations or one of the spouses is a non-believer. However, this situation is common to all mixed-belief marriages and Jehovah’s Witnesses are no exception.”
The Grand Chamber of the ECHR ruled in Fernández Martínez v. Spain:5
“… [freedom of religion] does not enshrine a right of dissent within a religious community; in the event of any doctrinal or organisational disagreement between a religious community and one of its members, the individual’s freedom of religion is exercised by the option of freely leaving the community … Respect for the autonomy of religious communities recognised by the State implies, in particular, that the State should accept the right of such communities to react, in accordance with their own rules and interests, to any dissident movements emerging within them that might pose a threat to their cohesion, image or unity …”
“… Moreover, the principle of religious autonomy prevents the State from obliging a religious community to admit or exclude an individual or to entrust someone with a particular religious duty …”
The Ghent Court of Appeal (Belgium) stated the following about the religious practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning shunning:6
“… what is essentially being denounced is passive social rejection … the shunning policy leads at most to social isolation from other members of the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and not to generalised social isolation … [the] evidence does not demonstrate that the shunning policy is aimed at actively approaching, stalking, threatening or bullying former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact that the third parties in question (non-believers or former believers) may understandably feel aggrieved or offended by this or find themselves socially cut off from their original circle of friends is not sufficient to neutralise the implementation of [the religious organization’s right to freedom of religion] …”
Japanese courts have reached the same conclusion.
- Niigata District Court, April 9, 2020, case number 2018 (Wa) No. 71, affirming that religious membership decisions are not subject to review by courts (see also the similar judgment of the Saga District Court, Takeo Branch, November 8, 2019, case number 2019 (Wa) No. 32).
In summary, case law in Japan and internationally confirms that a religious community undoubtedly has the right to set rules of religious conduct and to expel persons who do not follow those rules.7
1. The Bible, 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
2. The Bible, 2 Corinthians 2:6-8.
3. “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?”, jw.org.
4. ECHR, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172, 178.
5. ECHR, Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, §§ 128-129, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, §§ 136-137, ECHR 2013 (extracts).
6. Ghent Court of Appeal, case no. C/797/2022, June 7, 2022, paras. 2.9.3, 2.12.3, 2.12.4. On December 19, 2023, no. P.22.0971N, the Supreme Court of Belgium upheld the decision of the Ghent Court of Appeal.
7. For a discussion, see the expert opinion of Professors Introvigne and Folk, paras. 5.56-5.64.